The proposal.......

[HARDCORE]

When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers.
The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.
Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.



Our government should not be immune from similar risks.


Therefore: Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce remaining staff by 25%.

Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.


Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:


$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)

$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people's staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)

$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion / yr)

The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country?

We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.

Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)

Note:
Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems.
Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.

Summary of opportunity:

$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.

$ 282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.

$ 150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.

$ 59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.

$ 37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.

$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's $8-BILLION just to start!)

Big business does these types of cuts all the time.

If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling how much we would save.


Now They Get Full Retirement After Serving Only ONE Term.



IF you are happy how the Congress spends our taxes,
Your money and mine . . .
then just delete this message.

IF you are NOT at all happy, then I assume you know what to do.


I'm NOT happy so I just did.

[HARDCORE]

Received these by e-mail this morning and thought I would share them with you guys...... Mrs. H
----------------------------------------------
Rick this is greatly needed, but it will never happen. Can you imagine anyone sponsoring a bill that would eliminate their job? We are in a strangle hold of our greedy Governing body and it will take a revolt by the people to break it.
__________________________________________
ther it is, right before you eeyes. Now go act on it. Something we all should have done YEARs ago. now go do it. In the name of God man it's your country. throw the rascals out, now, don't wait. God Bless & semper fi & Thank you

[reconeil]

Betcha if Our PARTIME Forefathers of way-back-when had computers in their graves,...
that's exactly the type e-mail that they would ALL concertedly send out to ALL Americans.
Wouldn't-chu-think?

Neil